J Mitchum Posted October 4, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 4, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here are some pictures of the Leica 25mm f1.4 lens for the Digilux 3 and L1: Leica 25mm f1.4 (1) Leica 25mm f1.4 (2) It's a bit larger than I imagined though not compared to the current beast of a zoom... -- Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Hi J Mitchum, Take a look here Picture of 25mm f1.4 lens for Digilux 3/L1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
J Mitchum Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share #2 Posted October 4, 2006 I guess this was announced a couple days ago. Here are the specs for the new lens: Leica D lens 25mm f1.4 Length is 3 inches and weight is over 1 lb. So much for the 4/3 size advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted October 4, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 4, 2006 The Digilux 3 with this lens is not exactly going to be a lightweight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Mitchum Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share #4 Posted October 4, 2006 Nope. Many were hoping the 25mm prime would be small enough to offset the size of the Digilux 3. The 4/3 format was supposed to make things smaller yet so far only the E-400 seems to have acheived this goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted October 4, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 4, 2006 This glass is of Panasonic design with the licensed name, "Leica", slapped on it, yes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Mitchum Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share #6 Posted October 4, 2006 I believe it is a Leica design but manufactured by Panasonic. I suppose it could be a Panasonic design that was simply approved by Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 4, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 4, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I see someone has got dust on the lens already! D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 4, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 4, 2006 how much is this sucker? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 4, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 4, 2006 I just had this camera in my hands. It is light... slightly heavier than the Digi2 but not much. I can also tell you that the (standard, first-released) lens is not as buttery smooth as the Digi2s. It is better than a Canon or Nikon but still, not very inspiring. The viewfinder's not very bright, either... and it "feels" quite distant. It is like looking down a dimly-lit hallway. I'm not ready to shell out 2400 CDN for this thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 5, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 5, 2006 I am sorry that I am so negative but there is one thing that must be addressed. There is an engineering "mantra" that should never be forgotten: This is an instrument, in the same way that a violin is an instrument. If the violininst is uncomfortable playing the instrument, he or she will not perform well. She will fight against the violin, to get it to "speak". That lens needs to feel like butter... to the point that it is an extension of my body... to the point where I forget that it... IS... an extension of my body. In regard to the viewfinder... no good, man. I feel "at a distance" from my subject. If I am disconnected, I can't work. Once again, I apologize but some things need to be said: I do abstract graffiti and industrial images. I get myself in to situations that are "unsafe". That may seem odd to some but that happens to be what I do. A few weeks ago, I was shooting an abstract that was on the side of a Castrol oil drum barrel in an alley behind a mechanic's shop. I wanted this shot but unfortunately, there was an extremely angry Rottweiller going absolutely nuts. I was in a position where the dog was going crazy and there was a quarter inch of grease on the ground under my feet. You can imagine what my chances of getting away from that dog might be. If that dog jumps over that fence.... I don't have time to play with this camera like a weekend sports fisherman. I should also mention that I was doing this while I was in a country with a military government. The military police were up the street and I am not a citizen of the country. I am sorry that I sound like a terrible person but... I'm not a retired guy with a "hobby". This thing needs to fire, and I have 4 shots... and that's it. This M8 is going to be fast, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 5, 2006 Just as for the initial price the D2 was junk, with your logic, it too was overpriced?? The D3 is a relatively cheap camera and most competant photographers will create a heap of good images as well as a couple of great images with the camera..... perfect????? wierd ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 5, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 5, 2006 No. The D2 was slow. The situation I was telling you about was with the D2. Pretty scary but I got away with it. The write times were "worrysome". I still like the D2 but I want to move up. I am stil very happy with it though. "The D3 is a relatively cheap camera and most competant photographers will create a heap of good images as well as a couple of great images with the camera." Yes, but the viewfinder is still a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 5, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 5, 2006 ....The D3 is a relatively cheap camera... The image quality of the Digilux 3 will have to be outstanding to justify its price IMHO. The 10 Mpix Nikon D80 with the so-called 'pro' 17-55/2.8 Nikkor lens is 200$ cheaper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 5, 2006 The 10 Mpix Nikon D80 with the so-called 'pro' 17-55/2.8 Nikkor lens is 200$ cheaper. Which makes it a relatively cheaper camera.. and probably better... good for the punters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 5, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 5, 2006 OK so if you consider the Digilux 3 as a relatively cheap camera, it would be cheaper than what, Imants? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 5, 2006 Cheaper than a D3 and my investment into a duck farm, which is going quite well.... lotta people want ducks here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP3 Posted October 5, 2006 Share #17 Posted October 5, 2006 I also got the L1 in hand last week for 10mins, with its kit D-Zoom. Frankly, the gut feeling is, the workmanship of the lens is far from that of D2, let alone M or R lens. Apart from the 72 thread size, the barrel is quite rather plastic. More undesirable is the extending front part of the lens when zooming. I mean I must be spoiled by D2's relative compact form and internal zoom. But just how compact could you expect from a 4/3 DSLR, from what has already shown up in the 4/3 series? Sigh... the end of a great D1, D2 series... If Sigma can come up with their DP1, it is at least what Leica should look into for their future compact big sensor high IQ body, IMHO. Best Matthew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2006 Share #18 Posted October 5, 2006 I think Oly are going the same way, though my 11-22mm is a heavy little bugger, (sold my Oly gear [duck farm] but kept the 11-22) I guess it is the same as with most D2 owners a tad pissed off, mine just came back from Solms so I guess it will get a bit more looking after than the helter skelter of its previous life as the lens feels and looks brand new Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 5, 2006 Share #19 Posted October 5, 2006 This lens looks sexy. I plan to order it for Xmas I think! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 5, 2006 Share #20 Posted October 5, 2006 The camera just went down by a hundred bucks at BH Photo. It's 1,900 US. That's kind of interesting, I think. The camera was two grand for the last 4 months... until they actually arrived and are sitting on the shelf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.